How did Obama fare in his first speech as president? Speechwriters weigh in—some not so favorablyBy Michael Sebastian
michaels@ragan.com
In a highly anticipated inaugural address, President Barack Obama delivered his usual soaring and elegant rhetoric while recalling speeches and remarks from presidents Washington to Reagan.
Read the full text of President Obama's speech here.
But did he give a speech that professional communicators can admire and emulate? The reviews from speechwriters are mixed.
“President Obama’s inaugural address was a flop,” former Reagan administration speechwriter Hal Gordon tells Ragan.com. “I expected more than a pack of political clichés.”
Other former presidential scribes, like Ken Askew, who worked for Bush 41, thinks Obama delivered a tough and relatable message without saddling his audience with bad news.
“I would guess most Americans—not just blacks, not just Democrats, not just those who voted for Obama—felt he was speaking on their—his or her—behalf,” Askew said.
Here are the details, and a few lessons, from the 44th president’s inaugural address, according to professional speechwriters.
A rocky start gives way to rhetorical mastery
“Was Obama nervous? He flubbed the oath and the speech began slowly,” Brian Jenner, a freelance speechwriter in Great Britain remarks. “At first I was underwhelmed.”
(Turns out it was Chief Justice John Roberts who misspoke the oath.)
After shaking off the cobwebs in the first 150 words, Obama hit his rhetorical stride and quickly fulfilled expectations, Jenner says.
“I thought the speech was incredibly moving, but not because Obama did anything new,” says Bob Lehrman, former speechwriter for Vice President Al Gore. “It worked because he, and his writers, stuck with the things they’ve done for the last five years.”
While Mike Long, former speechwriter for Fred Thompson, takes issue with the content of the speech, he enjoyed Obama’s oration.
“He hit the marks, emphasized passages well, and fell into an entirely appropriate, preacherly cadence as he got to the end,” Long says.
Obama avoided obvious applause lines and stuck with the basics, like pace and flow.
“Given the author, I'm pretty sure that was deliberate,” says Askew. “Most of his soaring lines tended to be pretty long—not the sort of lines committed to memory, but majestic as you heard them.
“The result was a speech about the work ahead, firm without being condescending.”
John Watkis, a Toronto-based speechwriter, says the speech’s lack of sound bites strengthened Obama’s address.
“It’s clear that his goal was not to get people excited about his presidency, but rather to get them inspired to roll up their sleeves and work towards overcoming the challenges faced by the nation,” he explains.
Obama achieved this goal with direct, to-the-point language, Watkis adds.
Joan Hope, an Alaska-based former political communicator, disagrees. “There were too many vague promises and calls to unspecified action,” she says.
A nod to presidents past
Obama recalled speeches from at least three former presidents when he began describing the many challenges facing America.
Unlike President Carter, Obama delivered the country’s checklist of problems without wallowing in malaise, Askew says. In explaining how these problems are met, the president echoed the inaugural addresses of both Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan, who said more government, and less government, respectively, will solve the nation’s ills.
“The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works,” Obama said.
Askew calls this line in the speech “an overt but gracious … hearkening to FDR and Reagan, establishing a pragmatic link—and demarcation—among the three Presidents [FDR, Carter and Reagan] and their eras.”
Nearly every speechwriter agrees Obama’s reference to President Washington at the end of the address was among the speech’s finest moments. Obama said:
“At a moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people: ‘Let it be told to the future world ... that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive ... that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet [it].’ America. In the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words.”
Gordon celebrates this moment of the speech.
“I thought it was quite remarkable that one of our most eloquent recent presidents—Obama—should have been able to quote one of the least eloquent of America’s great presidents—George Washington—to achieve such a powerful effect,” Gordon says.
Weak content, some speechwriters said
Jenner thinks the Washington quote lifted Obama’s speech to a moving conclusion. Gordon believes it wasn’t enough. “It came too late to rescue the speech from banality—and, I expect, oblivion,” he says.
The speech’s problems, he continues, were its political clichés, such as, “We must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America” and “as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself …”
“[Obama is] now in danger of becoming a caricature of himself—a populist windbag exhaling endless high-sounding generalities with few or no specifics to back them up,” Gordon cautions.
Lehrman disagrees. He thinks one of the speech’s strong suits was its concrete detail. “So many of the other inaugurals are abstract—profundity by platitude,” he says.
Either way, every speechwriter agreed that above all else the event—the swearing in of American’s first African-American president—will long outlast the speech.
Five ways the inaugural address worked
Bob Lehrman, former White House speechwriter, explains what he believes are the strong points from President Obama's inaugural address.
1. It was concrete. This speech gave us a “father who 60 years ago might not have been served in a local restaurant,” or patriots “huddled by dying campfires,” or soldiers who “patrol far-off deserts.”
2. The language was memorable. Especially because of those characteristic litanies of antithesis, including, “we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.”
3. The speech included stories. Instead of simply quoting George Washington, Obama’s speech gives us a story, provides context and makes it moving.
4. It’s a literate speech. The language was precise. There’s even humor (“There are some who question the scale of our ambitions ... their memories are short.”)
5. The speech was inclusive. He makes so many people feel included: those out of work, a reader of “Scripture,” a “non-believer,” or just a Vietnam vet who want us to remember Khe Sanh. Obama reaches out to them—and that inspires confidence.
Click here to read the article as it originally appeared.
